Mumbai Court September 2000 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Vasu Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT253Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant is a manufacturer inter alia of organic compounds for which it claimed exemption from duty under Notification 1/93. By notice issued to it, the department proposed to disallow the benefit on the ground that this product was not specified in the registration certificate issued to the appellant as a small scale industry by the appropriate authority and one of the conditions of the notification had not been complied with.2. The Asstt. Collector confirmed the proposal in the notice. The appeal against this order having been dismissed by the Collector (Appeals) on the ground of limitation, the appellant is before us.3. Notification 1/93 contained the condition that the manufacturer should be registered as a small scale industry with the Director of Industry, that the appellant was not so registered was not disputed. In its decision in Manko Industries v. CCE 1994 (73) E.L.T. 375 the Tribunal has held that it is not necessary for the benefit of the Notification 175/86 to be...
Lakshmi Cement Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC600
1. The question for consideration in this appeal, whether the refractory bricks of special shapes and quality imported by the appellant would qualify the benefit of the partial exemption contained in entry no. 1 of the Table to Notification 77/90, has been answered in the appellant's favour by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Sanitaryware and Industries Ltd. v. CCE 770. In that judgment, the Court has explained that a spare part, when fitted into a machine subsequent to its manufacture to replace a defective or worn out part becomes a component of that machine. The notification exempts the bricks for use as component parts of industrial furnace. Therefore, if the appellant was able to show that the bricks were imported for fitment into its furnace to replace any damaged refractory bricks, and this is not disputed, the goods would be entitled to the benefit of the notification.2. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside.Consequential relief....
Totapulli Velayudan Arjun Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)24; 2001BomCR(Cri)18; (2001)1BOMLR108
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 4th June, 1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No. 542/93, where by he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergoR. I. for 2 months for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. has come up in appeal before us.2. The prosecution case in brief, as emerging from the statement of the informant Ashok Pawar P.W. 2, the solitary eye witnesses of the incident, is as under :On 12th January, 1993 at about 11 a.m. the informant Ashok Pawar P.W.2 and the deceased Suresh Shelar were present in the house of Ambaji in village Sarsola. The appellant also came in front of the said house. Thereafter the informant, Suresh Shelar and the appellant came in the square near Hanuman temple where the appellant caught the collar of the informant's shirt and asked him to give the knife to him. Thereafter there was an exchange of...
State of Maharashtra Through the Collector Vs. Bhagwan Vaijinath Bhujb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR502; 2001(3)BomCR172
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for respective parties.2. A common question of law and facts arises in all these appeals therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed by this common judgment. The State being aggrieved by the common award passed in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 317/78, 325/78, 320/78, 322/78 and 324/78 are being challenged in these First Appeal Nos. 121/80, 124/80, 125/80, 126/80 and 652/81 respectively. The challenge to the award is mainly on the ground that the Reference Court has granted enhancement of the compensation without there being sufficient evidence placed on record by the respondent-claimants to justify such enhancement. According to the appellants, there is no sufficient material on record to support claim of the respondents for enhancement of the compensation over and above grant by the Land Acquisition Officer to the respondents in respect of their respective plots, which were acquired under the notification under sec...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Rohit Dyeing and Finishing Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC626
1. The appeal is against the Order of the Collector (Appeals) in which he has held that the adjudication by the Dy. Collector on a notice to show cause which alleged suppression of facts by an assessee was invalid and directed papers to be placed before the Collector for adjudication.2. We do not consider it necessary to go into the grounds of appeal.The Dy. Collector's order which was appealed before the Collector.3. The duty has been demanded on the ground that the inputs received by the applicant for the period from December 1989 to April 1993 were not lead scrap as claimed and therefore deemed Modvat credit was not available. The entire basis for the demand, as we can see at this stage, is the report of the test of the samples taken from the applicant's factory by the officers on 10.9.93. The samples were taken in the presence of watchman in the factory, who according to the panchnama, said that these goods were the raw materials. It is debatable whether the watchman was in a posi...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Ishan Chandra Dutta
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT257Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These fifteen appeals filed by the department are against the common order of the Commissioner, received in the registry on 23-6-1999 were found to be deficient in that one copy of each of these appeals had been filed whereas four copies of each of the appeals were required to be filed. The registry issued notice dated 26-11-1999 which has been dispatched by registered post on 29-11-1999 to the Commissioner asking him to remedy the defect. There being no reply further notice was sent on 10th July, 2000 intimating that the matter would be heard by the bench on 7th August, 2000. On that date, in the absence of compliance, the Departmental Representative made a fervent plea for one more adjournment, saying that the matter is of importance. This was accordingly granted and the matter adjourned to today.2. The Departmental Representative says that he has not instruction.The registry reports that no further copies of the appeals have been filed. We are unable to accept the request made b...
Chandrakant H. Sanghvi Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT788Tri(Mum.)bai
1. We are concerned in these two appeals with two embroidery machines imported by the appellant in 1993. In the order impugned in these appeals, one by the importing firm and the other by the managing partner Chandrakant Sanghvi, the Collector of Customs has found that the value of the machines for assessment to duty should be, not Rs. 54.G0 lacs approx which was declared, but Rs. 77.00 lacs. He has found that the benefit of Notification 16/85 was not available to it. He has ordered the machines were imported in contravention of the import policy, ordered their confiscation with an option to redemption on payment of fine, imposed penalties on the firm as well as on its managing partner.2. The value declared by the importer was accepted at the time of clearance. It is only subsequent investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) that resulted in the charge of under valuation. The only evidence to support the charge of under valuation is a document, purporting to be a f...
Steelco Gujarat Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT381Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Two separate questions arise for our consideration in this appeal.The first relates to the utilisation by the appellant of notification 203/92 exempting from payment of customs duty subject to the fulfilment of the various conditions, most important being the performance of an export obligation. One of the conditions in the notification is that the Modvat credit should not have been availed of in the manufacture of the product exported in fulfilment of the obligation. The question that arise is whether in a case where the importer has availed of the benefit of the notification, he forfeits his right to availing of Modvat credit on the duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of the exported product.2. The reply is obviously in the negative. Notification 203/92 is issued under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and grants exemption from Customs duty on imported goods subject to the fulfilment of various conditions. One such condition, as we have seen, refers to taking Modvat ...
Acme Manufacturing Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT194Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the includability in the assessable value of electric overhead travelling crane and plants for manufacture of nitrogen, of the costs incurred by the appellant in supervising the erection at the site of the customer. In the order impugned in the appeal the Collector (Appeals) has confirmed the view taken by the Assistant Collector that these costs are includable for the reason that it is only by the fact of such installation that these cranes and plants respectively coining into existence.2. The contention of the representative of the appellant is that these goods emerge as complete finished goods at the appellant's factory. It is only in view of their size, rendering their transport as complete plant or crane unfeasible that they are disassembled into components and cleared such components for re-assembly at the site. Therefore it is not correct to say that these good only emerges as complete plant at the customer's site.3. The depar...
Commissioner of Cus. Vs. Unimac (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2000
Reported in: (2006)(204)ELT95Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These three appeals under Sub-section (1) of Section 129D of the Act are against the common order of the Commissioner of Customs. In that order, the Commissioner has held that the value of the goods which were exported by M/s. Unimac (India) Ltd., M/s. Sobat India Ltd. and M/s.Gulishta Impex, the respondents to these appeals was not inflated, and that the drawback allowable on their export has rightly been paid to them. He dropped the proceedings proposing recovery of the drawback.2. There are three grounds in the appeals. The first is that in view of the clearcut overvaluation of the exported goods, the demand for drawback should be confirmed. The departmental representative explaining this ground contends that the value of the goods had been shown, on enquiry by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) at Madras to be far lower than what was stated in the shipping bills and invoices enclosed to each bill of entry.3. In the common order impugned in these appeals, the Commissi...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »